Aircraft Control and Barber Pole
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now please think, in your expert opinion, when you feel your aircraft will no longer be controllable/survivable above such limits.
what a question... NO real pilot will intentionally go significant beyond barber pole to test at which speed he looses control and the aircraft seperates. the pilots who saw the real limit will not tell you...
you can go and ask a submariner at which real depth from his experience the boat has been crushed due to waterpressure...
what a question... NO real pilot will intentionally go significant beyond barber pole to test at which speed he looses control and the aircraft seperates. the pilots who saw the real limit will not tell you...
you can go and ask a submariner at which real depth from his experience the boat has been crushed due to waterpressure...
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FL600
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NO real pilot will intentionally go significant beyond barber pole to test at which speed he looses control and the aircraft seperates.[sic]
Apparently the "hijackers" of 9/11 were "real pilots". Why did they exceed the Barber pole/red line by 120-150 knots if they were taught that exceeding such limits could cause aircraft structural failure or loss of control? How would exceeding Red line by such a wide margin be constructive to completing their mission?
the pilots who saw the real limit will not tell you...
9/11: World Trade Center Attack Speed Analysis
I notice your registration date to Pprune. Are you willing to agree with "ADDIS77" and "GR53" that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Especially for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway in a 172 at 65 knots?
Are you willing to put you name to it?
If so, numerous verified 757/767 Captains from American and United Airlines, including NASA Flight Engineers who designed high performance flight control systems, disagree with you.
Just google "Pilots For 9/11 Truth" and click the left margin for their names and credentials.
You may also want to google "patriots question 911" to see,
1200+ Engineers and Architects
250+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals
300+ 9/11 Survivors and Family ...
400+ Professors Question 9/11
200+ Artists, Entertainers, and Media ...
Link to full statement
Last edited by RalphTheMouth; 20th Oct 2010 at 09:04.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did they exceed the Barber pole/red line by 120-150 knots if they were taught that exceeding such limits could cause aircraft structural failure or loss of control? How would exceeding Red line by such a wide margin be constructive to completing their mission?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apparently the "hijackers" of 9/11 were "real pilots". Why did they exceed the Barber pole/red line by 120-150 knots if they were taught that exceeding such limits could cause aircraft structural failure or loss of control?
no, there were terrorists , that is a big difference
they just firewalled the lever without even knowing what a barber pole is and what affects may come.
I notice your registration date to Pprune. Are you willing to agree with "ADDIS77" and "GR53" that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Especially for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway in a 172 at 65 knots?
i dont know since i never in my life exeeded Vmo at 150 knots. and i can tell you NO pilot do such a thing.
If so, numerous verified 757/767 Captains from American and United Airlines, including NASA Flight Engineers who designed high performance flight control systems, disagree with you.
i dont understand. where did they disagree with me? i hope you do not want to say that a real 757/767 captain exeeds Vmo by 100 or more knots in everyday business...
the key in my answer is that you will not get an answer to your question. its a situation a real driver in every case avoids. you can see from 9/11 that a 767 is able to fly far above barberpole- but at what speed this thing will seperate no human pilot will tell you, maybe a black box.
you want this for 9/11 theories?
no, there were terrorists , that is a big difference
they just firewalled the lever without even knowing what a barber pole is and what affects may come. I notice your registration date to Pprune. Are you willing to agree with "ADDIS77" and "GR53" that it is "easy" to control an aircraft at Vmo+150? Especially for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't hit a runway in a 172 at 65 knots?
i dont know since i never in my life exeeded Vmo at 150 knots. and i can tell you NO pilot do such a thing.
If so, numerous verified 757/767 Captains from American and United Airlines, including NASA Flight Engineers who designed high performance flight control systems, disagree with you.
i dont understand. where did they disagree with me? i hope you do not want to say that a real 757/767 captain exeeds Vmo by 100 or more knots in everyday business...
the key in my answer is that you will not get an answer to your question. its a situation a real driver in every case avoids. you can see from 9/11 that a 767 is able to fly far above barberpole- but at what speed this thing will seperate no human pilot will tell you, maybe a black box.
you want this for 9/11 theories?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FL600
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, there were terrorists , that is a big difference 
they just firewalled the lever without even knowing what a barber pole is and what affects may come.
they just firewalled the lever without even knowing what a barber pole is and what affects may come.
They were Commercial, Multi, Instrument rated according to the 9/11 Commission report. You should read it sometime.
But I guess you feel someone who is Comm, Multi, Instrument are not "real pilots" and instead a "terrorist" who hasn't a clue what Red line defines.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FL600
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and secondly if there had been an attempt to intercept them - then they only needed a "missile on a trajectory".
Unless they were in an aircraft which can perform 510 knots near sea level which would prevent the Otis interceptors from reaching them in time.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ralph, i think we and the whole world truly can say the people behind the steering of these flights were terrorists and not pilots... its a very sad chapter in aviation history.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That 100% of the 'crews' with virtually no experience, managed to precisely hit their target at their very first attempt and so at a speed where even test pilots have probably never been should be matter of question ... no doubt.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether the terrorists who piloted those aircraft knew what the barber pole was, or what the significance is of Vmo/Mmo, is frankly irrelevant, because they did not care. They were about to plow into buildings - something I think we can all agree that anyone with a pilot's licence usually tries not to do, and is "trained not to do".
So even if their sim instructors had explained every detail of the flight testing at and beyond Vmo conducted by Boeing, had explained every element of the flight test and certification basis for the definition of Vmo at low altitude, it still would not have mattered. they wanted to fly into those buildings, as fast as they could, to cause the most damage they could.
There is nothing aerodynamically special about Vmo which makes it a cliff-edge past which instant disaster threatens. I've said this before, but every aircraft certified to Part 25 is tested way above Vmo and Mmo, and usually the critical case for handling is Mmo, which they were nowhere near at low altitude.
Flight well above Vmo is dangerous - even very dangerous - because you are compromising all of the dsafety margins built in for cert. But unless you manoeuvre violently, or encounter a severe gust, or heavy turbulence, then there's no real reason the aircraft will suddenly fall apart. It's a stupid thing to do, because you are taking risks that are not required. But they had no intention of completing their flights anyway. Even if they had done it and then lost control at the late stages of the attack (and who's to say the attack on the Pentagon at least didn't?) then the two WTC aircraft would still have come down in downtown Manhattan and caused significant property damage and loss of life. I'm sure the terrorists would have considered that an acceptable result.
So even if their sim instructors had explained every detail of the flight testing at and beyond Vmo conducted by Boeing, had explained every element of the flight test and certification basis for the definition of Vmo at low altitude, it still would not have mattered. they wanted to fly into those buildings, as fast as they could, to cause the most damage they could.
There is nothing aerodynamically special about Vmo which makes it a cliff-edge past which instant disaster threatens. I've said this before, but every aircraft certified to Part 25 is tested way above Vmo and Mmo, and usually the critical case for handling is Mmo, which they were nowhere near at low altitude.
Flight well above Vmo is dangerous - even very dangerous - because you are compromising all of the dsafety margins built in for cert. But unless you manoeuvre violently, or encounter a severe gust, or heavy turbulence, then there's no real reason the aircraft will suddenly fall apart. It's a stupid thing to do, because you are taking risks that are not required. But they had no intention of completing their flights anyway. Even if they had done it and then lost control at the late stages of the attack (and who's to say the attack on the Pentagon at least didn't?) then the two WTC aircraft would still have come down in downtown Manhattan and caused significant property damage and loss of life. I'm sure the terrorists would have considered that an acceptable result.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mad (Flt) Scientist,
IMO, the question is not as much on VMO or vastly exceeding it, but more on the fact that those 'crews' supposedly successfully adapted in no time from 100 knots on Cessna 172 to 500 knots on Boeing 767 to precisely hit their target, and so with no waste.
Weight and speed make a huge difference on the control inputs with target in sight ...
That capacity for adaptation seems simply miraculous to me.
What did they train for in their simulator sessions if they did any ?
Is that information available ?
Did they only practice 360 knots at 1000 feet ... ?
IMO, the question is not as much on VMO or vastly exceeding it, but more on the fact that those 'crews' supposedly successfully adapted in no time from 100 knots on Cessna 172 to 500 knots on Boeing 767 to precisely hit their target, and so with no waste.
Weight and speed make a huge difference on the control inputs with target in sight ...
That capacity for adaptation seems simply miraculous to me.
What did they train for in their simulator sessions if they did any ?
Is that information available ?
Did they only practice 360 knots at 1000 feet ... ?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if its a conspiracy and they did all those that you suggest Rulph, why would they fly it at +100-150knts in a way that 'no pilot could'?
So that its SO obvious that the planes were modified and RC controlled?
So the possibilities that I see are:
Maybe do a study to find out IF the buildings could collapse being hit by a plane flying at Vmo and then we see how your theory hold up.
I'm no pilot, but it seems the thread has strayed off.
I'm aeronautical engineer though, so my suggestion for the above study has some value in relevance to the thread... Instead of a witch hunt, check in a 'scientific' way why the planes would fly that fast. And I doubt any AAM or PAC2/3 cannot outrun an airliner.
If you think that speed helps avoid interception (at least from fighterplanes), check out the stall speed of modern fighters and also check out why governments around the world equip AFTER 9/11 small turboprop planes (Texan II etc) with machine guns.. Unless thats a conspiracy also..
Cheers
So that its SO obvious that the planes were modified and RC controlled?
So the possibilities that I see are:
- you are smarter than the conspirators (don't take it personally but I doubt)
- its not a conspiracy
- it is a 'conspiracy' and they want people to 'find out' via conspiracy theories so that nobody in the end believes its a conspiracy.
Maybe do a study to find out IF the buildings could collapse being hit by a plane flying at Vmo and then we see how your theory hold up.
I'm no pilot, but it seems the thread has strayed off.
I'm aeronautical engineer though, so my suggestion for the above study has some value in relevance to the thread... Instead of a witch hunt, check in a 'scientific' way why the planes would fly that fast. And I doubt any AAM or PAC2/3 cannot outrun an airliner.
If you think that speed helps avoid interception (at least from fighterplanes), check out the stall speed of modern fighters and also check out why governments around the world equip AFTER 9/11 small turboprop planes (Texan II etc) with machine guns.. Unless thats a conspiracy also..
Cheers
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO, the question is not as much on VMO or vastly exceeding it, but more on the fact that those 'crews' supposedly successfully adapted in no time from 100 knots on Cessna 172 to 500 knots on Boeing 767 to precisely hit their target, and so with no waste.
so what...? the goverment by itself captured the planes and let it land at area 51, then eliminated all passengers and the own kidnappers, removed the real planes and let intentionally crash rc controlled 767 in the wtc...?
that would be much better than the moon hoax conspirancy !
so what...? the goverment by itself captured the planes and let it land at area 51, then eliminated all passengers and the own kidnappers, removed the real planes and let intentionally crash rc controlled 767 in the wtc...?
that would be much better than the moon hoax conspirancy !
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FL600
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That capacity for adaptation seems simply miraculous to me.
For those who keep repeating "Conspiracy Theory".
Conspiracy - 2 or more people planning and executing to achieve a goal.
Theory - a proposed explanation which has not been proven.
The government explanation:
"19 Muslim terrorists under the guidance of Osama Bin Laden planned, hijacked and crashed 4 aircraft on 9/11 due to the fact they hate our freedoms"
Now here are just some of the facts:
F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Identify 9/11 Aircraft
FBI Refuses To Confirm Identities of 9/11 Aircraft
9/11 Aircraft 'Black Box' Serial Numbers Mysteriously Absent
OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENTS OWN DATA
United 93 Data Provided by US Government Does Not Support Observed Events
FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”
The only Conspiracy Theory that has been offered is by the 9/11 Commission. A Commission who admits they were set up to fail.
Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support claims made that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots to hit a runway and was refused to rent a 172.
So far, the only evidence that has been offered to support the govt version of events is, "Because the govt told me so...". All data and evidence provided thus far conflicts with the govt story.
Here are some more choice quotes regarding the pilot skill of the "most experienced hijacker", (according to the 9/11 Commission):
"weak student" who "was wasting our resources."
I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' Source
He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source
instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.
"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"
got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." Washington Post, 10/15/2001
"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)
flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.
" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)
More here...I didn't allow him to come back. I thought, 'You're never going to make it.' Source
He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.Source
instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks before the attacks.
"He had only the barest understanding what the instruments were there to do"
got overwhelmed with the instruments." He used the simulator perhaps three or four more times, Fults said, then "disappeared like a fog." Washington Post, 10/15/2001
"He could not fly at all." -New York Times (5/04/02)
flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.
" I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."CBS News (5/10/02)
Scene From: "9/11: World Trade Center Attack" - Control
The above type of pilot was able to control a 757 and 767, at Vmo+150, to hit targets with a 25' margin for error laterally (WTC) and a 33' margin for error vertically (Pentagon), with zero time in type yet couldn't even control a 172 at 65 knots to hit a runway?
I don't think so.
Is everyone enjoying their Naked Body Scanners?
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please let us know when you find one verified pilot willing to support claims made that it is "easy" to control a 767 at Vmo+150, Va+220 --and pull G's-- out of a 10,000+ foot dive, while rolling on G's cranking into a 38 degree bank, to hit a target with less than a 25' margin for error - for a pilot with less experience than one who couldn't control a 172 at 65 knots to hit a runway and was refused to rent a 172.
interesting point, i give you right here.but again- so what???
what is your quess?
interesting point, i give you right here.but again- so what???
what is your quess?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2010
Location: FL600
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
interesting point, i give you right here
but again- so what???
There is a growing mountain of data and evidence which conflicts with the govt version of events regarding 9/11.
what is your quess?
